So, do we need a creation myth after all? One thing is certain: conscious intentions unquestionably exist in our experience. We have at least the phenomenal experience of a conscious intention in our acting. As conscious intentions seem so relevant for our human nature we do need a myth about them. But we need even more. Pacherie’s social creation myth to my mind is more than a myth; it is one approach, which combines empirical knowledge with a myth about the function and its history. I have only analysed the question of causality from an empirical and metaphysical point of view and its relevance for the social creation myth. In conclusion, we might have to satisfy some further analytical and empirical constraints. Yet, just denying any function of the experience of conscious intentions due to some experimental data or analytical considerations seems premature. A possible solution could be the reconsideration of the concept of causality, to find an explanation of the function of conscious intentions in individual and joint action. Maybe the creation myth and the experimental approach have to be adjusted and be brought together in concept and content, in order to understand the deeper function of conscious intentions. The search for a creation myth should start with creation facts. These facts should help us to elucidate why and how intentions are conscious or at least achieve their phenomenal character, to define the neural correlates or neural correlation in terms of self-organizing, dynamic networks underlying conscious intentions and the causal function in human action, without the limitations of temporal or linear causality and in a more realistic framework of intentional action.